zeldafandomcom-20200223-history
Forum:Moving
:If there is a way to do a 100% full transfer of all the articles and files then I wouldn't have a problem with it. --Birdman5589 (talk) 04:17, September 29, 2010 (UTC) ::I think there would be, but it may take a lot of work. -'Isdrak ' 04:18, September 29, 2010 (UTC) :::We'd have to carefully weigh the pros and cons of remaining Wikia affiliates. Which, of course means that due to there being few to no pros (except myself) it might be a good move if the transition process isn't too bothersome. Of course, whoever had the original idea does not seem to have a realistic grasp on the situation. --AuronKaizer ' 18:57, September 29, 2010 (UTC) :::: I'm all for it. I think at this point, getting a dump of the Wiki and moving it elsewhere seems a hella lot easier than reformatting articles. However, ZW may prove troublesome if there ends up two independent zelda wikis. -Stars talk http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y27/pyroac/Starssprite.gif 18:26, October 6, 2010 (UTC) :::::I want to switch. But like Stars said, ZW probably wouldn't be happy. --'Jazzi BassJapas ''' 21:03, October 6, 2010 (UTC) I have located a Wiki farm for us to move to, it uses wiki coding and transfers everything, including edit count and files. All that is required is a data dump and its can be handed over to the shoutwiki staff and they will move everything.Echo 1125 (talk) 22:36, October 7, 2010 (UTC) :You know what? Screw Wikia, I'm tired of having to depend on little ol' undependable them for everything, all the while having to put up with their hypocrisy and forced "innovations". I'm all for it at this point. --AuronKaizer ' 22:39, October 7, 2010 (UTC) ::I be in agreement with AK -'Minish Link' 22:40, October 7, 2010 (UTC) :::I, for one (and maybe only one), don't have much of a problem with the new look; it mixes things up and makes it seem fresh and, maybe even, easier (be aware, though, that I haven't used the new look that much yet; this is basically my initial response). Moving away may make things too different and attract fewer new users. The 23:27, October 7, 2010 (UTC) ::::Definitely not easier. There is no way to have a customized navigational thingy like the sidebar that I am aware of, and the navigation system that is there is horrible. Freshness is all well and good, but do you think it will be fresh a year from now? Supporting the skin based solely upon freshness is illogical. Also, do you think that the skin is good enough to justify a complete replacement of Monaco? -'Isdrak ' 01:11, October 8, 2010 (UTC) :::::Well, TM, you're entitled to your own opinion, of course, but I'll have to disagree on all counts. Everything that the current look does right, the new one does wrong. As for the moving notion itself, assuming what Echo found is all (s)he says it is, I fully support. Actually, I support anyway, but complete tranfer just makes things much easier. Wikia's never helped us much, ever. And with all this recent IRC crap... I can't really think of any reason to stay affiliated with Wikia other than that it could bring more traffic to the wiki, but meh. Having a half-decent wiki skin and not being associated with them is way too good to not agree with. By the way, is there some sort of regulation on stuff we'll have to get rid of (like MyHome since Wikia sort of "invented" that... not that anybody'd miss it, but you know)? Or is there no copyright on that sort of thing? 'Xykeb' 'Yvolix' ''' '' 04:37, October 8, 2010 (UTC) ::::::The look is horid. I have bad eyes as it is, and, although I've never tested it with my glasses, how do I know. I get headaches easily. I can't find anything and it isn't fair. The editing is harder to do. I'll test it on my computer when I get back from school, but as of now. It's just, bad. --'Jazzi BassJapas ' 13:25, October 8, 2010 (UTC) :::::::I'm not buying this whole move thing at all. Moving and operating your own wiki is much harder than it seems (not even ZW does that. They are operated by ZU). So unless this wiki farm is literally a wikia-esque wiki farm where mostly everything is set up from the get-go, we have a problem. And if that is the case, we are just putting ourselves in the same position as we are in already, so there's may be no real point to do so at all with the risk. Second, this will kill our traffic. A lot of people use this over the others simply because it is part of wikia. So in that sense, we will lose that traffic. In another sense, we will lose traffic by potentially dropping to the bottom of Google search when we start a new wiki. Third, this would leave room for another wiki to sprout up using wikia in our place. And though they will likely never catch up to us, it is possible to gain a lot of info in a short amount of time as seen with our expansion alone. There is a lot more I have to say dealing with wikia itself, but not a lot of time. But bottom line, this is not a good idea to just jump on without a lot more discussion first. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 15:17, October 8, 2010 (UTC) ::::::::Joe brings up a good point. Also, if we do move, we should first have a clear consensus (or really close to one) about moving. I'm not for or against moving; but, if I had to pick, I would choose against at this point. I am against the lack of Shout Box in the new look, though. The 22:09, October 8, 2010 (UTC) :::::::::Every point that Joe mentions are the reasons I'm not fully behind a move. At the same time, I've tried using the new skin and navigation is horrible. The articles are so crammed by the fixed 4x3 aspect ratio. Along with the aspect ratio, The space for the article is even narrower as about a third of that space is used for the side bar. It makes that articles look as if you were reading them off of a mobile device. Maybe there is a way to make the new skin not so bad to work with but as it is now it makes it difficult. There is good reasons of each decision so that's why I'll move if we move and I'll stay if we stay. --Birdman5589 (talk) 22:25, October 8, 2010 (UTC) ::::::::::It's not just the new look, to be perfectly honest... Wikia's been pissing me off for months. Their ideas are getting progressively worse and more mandatory. They've never been supportive of us when we actually need them, either; they freaking sided with SHADE LINK over us. Yes, Joe brings up good points, but I for one value a decent-looking, crappy-innovation-less, possible-to-navigate-without-having-a-seizure wiki over a popular, high-traffic one. Of course, it's all a matter of perspective anyway. ''Xykeb'' ''Yvolix'' '' '' 22:47, October 8, 2010 (UTC) ::::::::::Yeesh, I need to check the forums more often...but since the notion of moving came up, I've been in favor of it. I really haven't said much on the subject, but Wikia is doing precisely the kinds of things I hate seeing in administrative powers in general: forcing change on people without any real consent, emphasizing accommodation for n00bs who do nothing productive anyway, and forgetting the importance--heck, the meaning--of efficiency, to name a few. First decent opportunity we get, I am completely, totally in favor of moving. Jedimasterlink (talk) 07:30, October 9, 2010 (UTC) :I am not experienced enough to know the right thing here, but I would support a move if we could somehow keep our accounts.Phantom' Zelda ::While I would personally like to try out the new Oasis coding to see if it is any good, the feedback doesn't seem like it. Either way, I'm all for a move. To be quite honest, I'm all for any wiki farm that doesn't incorporate blogs and social networking site stuff. - McGillivray227 23:01, October 8, 2010 (UTC) IRC Channel Okay, assuming we do end up moving, the IRC channel (#wikia-zelda) will also have to move (since we would no longer be a part of wikia). I for one propose we use the newly-registered #ZeldapediaIRC, but since this should be a community decision, I asketh of all of you- What should the new channel be called (again, assuming we do end up moving)? -'''Minish Link 23:32, October 7, 2010 (UTC) :#ZeldapedaIRC's a bit lengthy, but not so much that I have a problem with it. I don't really have that much of an opinion at this point. If people decide on #ZeldapediaIRC, I'll go with it. Xykeb Yvolix '' '' 04:37, October 8, 2010 (UTC) ::I feel as if we should just move the IRC channel anyways. Even if we don't move. Because we're still temp OP'g. And a request for founder will take a while. We might as well switch so we can get founder and AOP easier. Whatdya think? --'Jazzi BassJapas ' 21:44, October 8, 2010 (UTC) :::If we do move and all, we should have a support (everyone supports only one name) system with no opposes (not a poll, or any random user, maybe IPs, could vote). The 21:56, October 8, 2010 (UTC) Suggestions for the IRC Channel name Once we get enough suggestions, we'll make a poll about it. And have people vote on it. Sound good? --'Jazzi BassJapas ' 13:25, October 8, 2010 (UTC) :I don't think it should be a poll with and tags. I'd say a ToC Suggestions-style voting thing. -'Isdrak ' 21:47, October 8, 2010 (UTC) #wikia-zelda ::If we stay with wikia. #ZeldapediaIRC ::Already slightly registered. Lenghty but do-able name. #Zeldapedia-IRC ::Registered as well. Tad bit lengthy, but good with the hyphen. #Zeldapedia ::Not registered that I know of, but less lengthy than the others. It's registered to freenode. #Zelda-IRC ::Short and to the point. The 22:09, October 8, 2010 (UTC) #IRC-Zelda ::Same, but with "IRC" first. The 22:09, October 8, 2010 (UTC) Comments for the name #Zeldapedia, as much as I'd love to use it. Is registered to freenode. I've tried going to #freenode to get it unregistered, as always, they were no help. --'Jazzi BassJapas ' 21:52, October 8, 2010 (UTC) NIWA Although I do not edit this wiki as most of my knowledge of the Zelda universe comes from here as I only have two games, I do still consider myself a Zelda fan and an observing member of this wiki (I have plans to become more involved). As such I give this idea, which I do not see already on this page, to you. That is, to join NIWA (Nintendo Independant Wiki Alliance). It has eight members including Super Mario Wiki and another Zelda wiki, Zelda Wiki.org, which I am suggesting a merger with. There are also plans to move Smash Wikia to SmashWiki as a NIWA wiki for the same reasons as this wiki (see here). AM666999talk 23:13, October 8, 2010 (UTC) :...Us? Merge with ZW? ............Yeah, I can tell you haven't been around long. There's a reason that idea wasn't already on this page. The two wikis are not exactly on the best of terms... besides which, we're not looking to merge with another wiki, just to move our own content somewhere else. Xykeb Yvolix '' '' 23:23, October 8, 2010 (UTC) ::I don't mean to sound rude but that just seems totally against the entire idea of a wiki... Personal disagreement/conflict should not get in the way of wiki-type encyclopedias.-- AM666999talk 23:31, October 8, 2010 (UTC) :::Which it would if we merged with them. We're at a very good neutral point with them right now where they don't have to take our crap and we don't have to take theirs. Besides of which, there's the matter of formatting to consider. Perceived quality aside, the two wikis are just too different in how the articles are written. Merging would be more bothersome than staying apart. The merge itself would get in the way of wiki-type encyclopedias, in other words. Xykeb Yvolix '' '' 23:45, October 8, 2010 (UTC) ::::Ah, I see what you're getting at here. However a more general approach to merging may not be so bothersome. If you joined the NIWA partnership and had a sort of friendly alliance with Zelda Wiki within NIWA then a direct wiki merger would not be nessecary. Without meaning to sound "hippy" a friendly standing with someone is better than a neutral one. Please consider these ideas un-biasedly.-- AM666999talk 23:50, October 8, 2010 (UTC) Also you haven't really given me any real reason for knowing why there is a disagreement anyway, other than the format of pages so I do not see why two good Zelda wikis could not be joined in some kind of partnership. Zelda is the only subject for which I have two links to wikis on my Google toolbar lol.-- AM666999talk 00:07, October 9, 2010 (UTC) :::::While I personally don't have a whole lot of opinion on the matter there are many people here that would greatly object to any sort of affiliation with ZW. I think there's been way too much conflict between the wikis for people to just let it go and cooperate. Say what you will about unproductivity, but I just don't see that as a viable option for us. And as for the part you just added, the format of the pages is the least of the problems. The two wikis have had a lot of conflict over the years over something or another. It's not a logical thing, we just frankly don't like each other a whole lot. Also many Zeldapedians think that the quality of ZW articles is subpar and vice versa. Xykeb Yvolix '' '' 00:13, October 9, 2010 (UTC) I'd still like to see what others on this wiki have to say and please remember that there are several of options regarding NIWA with differing levels of association with ZW. The option which has the largest association with ZW (and the least likely) is of course a direct merger. Then there is direct association with ZW, becoming a member of NIWA, or becoming an affiliate with NIWA. Also remember that if the wiki joined NIWA it would not only join the wiki with ZW, but also Super Mario Wiki, Bulbapedia, Smash Wikia (moving to SmashWiki as a member of NIWA), and all the other members and affiliates of NIWA.-- AM666999talk 12:55, October 9, 2010 (UTC) :Actually I don't think becoming a member without direct association is possible (as NIWA only has one wiki per subject) but by direct association I do not mean merger and affiliation is also possible. A direct association with long-run (no rush) plans for a merger into one compromised wiki would be possible and not too difficult. By suggesting these possibilities I am trying to expand options, not limit them.-- AM666999talk 13:10, October 9, 2010 (UTC) ::Look, we ain't joining. Get over it. --'Jazzi BassJapas ' 13:14, October 9, 2010 (UTC) :::Now that does limit them. Please try to give a reason rather than just say "shan't". No offence. -- AM666999talk 13:31, October 9, 2010 (UTC) ::::And in no way am I saying that NIWA is the only option. You will probably all come up with some amazing idea for the wiki, but to do that you should get all the possibilities in first, then whittle them down.-- AM666999talk 13:34, October 9, 2010 (UTC) :::::Nobody wants to join ZW. There's bad blood. There's no way in hell that we're joining them. --'Jazzi BassJapas ' 13:34, October 9, 2010 (UTC) ::::::Bad blood? Whose blood? You're all just Zelda fans wishing the same thing: to have a comprehensive Zelda encyclopedia, with nothing but an ongoing seies of petty disagreements keeping you from a united goal. Disagreements like that exist not because of some underlying "bad blood" but simply because you believe there to be "bad blood". You may try to aviod it by avoiding them, but as long as negative feeling exists between you, then the argumets will exist.-- AM666999talk 13:45, October 9, 2010 (UTC) :::::::And anyway, why should negative feeling exist? It's not like you know one another...-- AM666999talk 13:50, October 9, 2010 (UTC) ::::::::Bad blood as in there have been complete copying incidents. And I don't have the time to deal with your constant shoving of us joining ZW. So you should just leave. And do you mind making your freaking edits all at once. --'Jazzi BassJapas ' 13:51, October 9, 2010 (UTC) ::::::::So what? Wikia copies from wikipedia all the time. All it shows is that you had good info they needed. All the more reason to work together. I'm not even going to bother arguing against leaving, wikis evolve because people have ideas, and rows happen because they disagree over them. As for making my edits all at once, well I can't help being online at the same time as you.-- AM666999talk 13:56, October 9, 2010 (UTC) :::::::::I don't have the energy to deal with you. You're just a stupid person trying to convince us to join ZW, the last time this was suggested. It didn't work. It ain't gonna work this time. --'Jazzi BassJapas ' 13:58, October 9, 2010 (UTC) :::::::::So you're fine with plagiarism? -'Isdrak ' 14:00, October 9, 2010 (UTC) :::::::::No, but it's not like any one person made the work in the first place. It's pretty much free information. Not that I'm saying that mabye they shouldn't have asked for permission first, put a template at the top of the page giving recognition, or put the work "in their own words", but still, it's not worth not realising that their goal isn't the credit of the work, it's the complete-as-possible zelda encyclopedia.-- AM666999talk 14:06, October 9, 2010 (UTC) :::::::::You're all getting worked up about not joining ZW when the original idea was really just NIWA, and just an idea. Seriously, this is how many wars start. No one can bear to hear an idea that doesn't match their own, myself included. But I try to bear them.-- AM666999talk 14:14, October 9, 2010 (UTC) :::::::::If you extend a friendly hand to someone, you would be surprised how willing they'd take it. And BTW, I'm not preaching. I'm athiest.-- AM666999talk 14:18, October 9, 2010 (UTC) :::::::::: Frith be damned! Look, if we're moving, we're going to ShoutWiki. Not NIWA. Not ZW. They tried to merge us and ZW before. Drop the idea boy. -Stars talk http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y27/pyroac/Starssprite.gif 14:33, October 9, 2010 (UTC) :::::::::: "Zeldapedia is a collaborative encyclopedia for everything related to the Legend of Zelda series. There are 4,095 articles and growing since this wiki was founded in June 2005. The wiki format allows anyone to create or edit any article, so we can all work together to create a comprehensive database for the Legend of Zelda series." ::::::::::So much for that. I'm dissapointed. Not really, just annoyed. And don't speak as a superior to someone who wants people to work together. In fact, don't speak as a superior to anyone if you can't work collaboritively with people.-- AM666999talk 14:55, October 9, 2010 (UTC) No merge, no affiliation. I haven't been around here long and even I know some of the jerk moves that ZW has pulled. We wouldn't like to associate ourselves with people who directly COPY information from other sources and pass it off as their own work.--Hylianhero777 (talk) 14:45, October 9, 2010 (UTC) :Copying is not so bad, and as I have already stated passing work off as their own was probably not the intention of the wiki, however it may have been the intention of individuals. ::And I'm kind of amazed at how many people can get mad at someone for suggesting peace.-- AM666999talk 14:57, October 9, 2010 (UTC) :::Suggesting it? No. Obsessively pushing it despite the fact that the merger is unwanted and would just bring more conflict anyway? Yes. Please refer to my talk page for a detailed psychological analysis of why you can't realize that this is a bad idea. -'Isdrak ' 15:01, October 9, 2010 (UTC) ::::Yes, suggesting it. I am simply the only representative available to argue for it. I rather doubt saying "hey, wanna be friends" is going to bring large amounts of conflict. I have left the rest of my reply on your talk page.-- AM666999talk 15:24, October 9, 2010 (UTC) Read the bloody thing from the top and you will see my ideas become progressively more extreme. The reason for this is simply to counter your extremes. My actual ideas are much more unfixed and fluid, but you force me to argue a steady case and try to diminish me because of it. Read it from the top.-- AM666999talk 15:29, October 9, 2010 (UTC) :Since we are going for extreme idea.... How about ZeldaWiki no longer is a part of the NIWA and Zeldapedia takes over the Zelda slot. There is no merger and ZW just becomes an independent wiki. ZP also doesn't need to recognize being part of the NIWA and just operates as they currently are. --Birdman5589 (talk) 15:40, October 9, 2010 (UTC) ::Right. So force Zeldawiki out of their slot for no reason. Everybody wins.-- AM666999talk 15:47, October 9, 2010 (UTC) :::Well I did say it was an extreme idea. (That means it isn't practical.) --Birdman5589 (talk) 15:48, October 9, 2010 (UTC)